The stated reasons were WMD, Iraq-Al-Qaida relation and relation with 9/11.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
First off, this was a discussion of international law (not that I remember the US ceding its sovereignty to the UN), not Bush's justification for the war.
Bush gave three reasons in his speeches before the war. Pay attention now:
WMD, war on terror, liberate Iraqis/democratize the region. Also, make the region more safe. From liberal NY Times columnist EJ Dionne in January, 4 months before the war:
(1) taking weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam Hussein's hands, or (2) removing Hussein from power, or (3) bringing democracy to Iraq and revolutionizing the politics of the Middle East.
Then why the same logic was not applied to UN inspection team ? why is it that UN team is supposed to find the WMD in a short time and US has to be given 250 years for the same.?
Because Hans "Cleuseau" Blix wouldn't be driving Saddam into a rat hole. The Left's idea of "containment" was Hussein's thugs training Muhammed Atta and throwing people into acid baths and wood chippers.
Given the choice of 1) "containment (see above definition) and 2) Dragging Saddam out of a rat hole, I'll take the latter.
No. I can't believe all the people on this board suggesting the nonsensical proposition that Saddam was some cooperative guy who complied with the weapon's inspectors. There were numerous places the inspectors were prohibited from visiting, including dozens of palaces, some of which were square miles in size.
Ask the thousands of dead Kurds whather or not Saddam had WMDs...
What's also amazing is how many of you are willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt - as if a murderous dictator is entitled a presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty beyong a reasonable doubt - but you aren't willing to give Bush any such quarter.
I'd still like to hear from all you anti-Bush libs one thing:
How are the Iraqi people, and humanity, not better off without Saddam - who liked to have dissenters thrown feet-first into wood chippers or acid baths - removed? If we didn't go in and take him out, he'd still be cutting off ears and tongues of people who dared to speak their minds. The Iraqi's are happy and free, and you are on the wrong side of history, alongside America's "friends" like Jacques Chirac.
You would have Saddam still merrily commiting crimes against humanity, a completely untenable position.
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991
Technically, the 1991 war remained a cease-fire, a truce which Iraq violated by firing on US patrols during said cease-fire. This invoked the US's right to resume hotilities.
Furthermore, Iraq was in violation of about 2 dozen UN resolutions.
When you've been in possession of a country for months at a time and you've had thousands of people to search it with the co-operation of most of the people in that country, how hard should it be to find anything?
Absurd. We are still finding Egyptian mummies and artifacts that are several millenia-old buried in the desert. We could find Saddam's weapons 250 years from now buried somewhere.
I'll be interested to learn what Saddam has to say on the matter after intense interrogation.
That, and by all reports and estimates of Saddam's state of mind he'd have used those weapons if he'd had them when we marched on Baghdad.
So, if Saddam didn't have WMD, why would he throw out weapons inspectors and risk being thrown out of power? All Saddam had to do was comply with inspectors and he'd still be living in palaces built woth the Iraqi people's money, and still torturing and killing dissenters.
Of course we Californians can can always buy these on the Net, but these fish are tropical, in need of a certain temp and oxygenated water. How the hell do they ship these things? I want some of these for the new year.
This bodes very ill for my hopes for a glow-in-the-dark cat.
I've been waiting for a class action
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 5, Informative
against these cell companies under unfair competition statutes. California's, which has been widely criticized, nontheless would be perfect for these chickn-$#!t hidden fees and deceptive practices.
CALIFORNIA CODES BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200
17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
The beauty (or horror, depending on your perspective) is the "unfair" part. What was not technically illegal in the past may now be sued for if it is "unfair."
The general welfare reference is mentioned within the taxation power, not the spending power. Just because some revisionists have created spending authority which was never intended, don't pin that on the framers. The framers intended "general welfare" as running the government and satisfying the ends of the preamble (justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty). Why would the Constitution spell out specific spending powers (and every other power) but grant some broad, nebulous spending authority - within the taxation power?
Keep in mind that the income tax was banned by amenedment until 1920...
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II
Notice this isn't just on defense and homeland security (you know, the common defense that the Constitution actually calls for), but also for entitlements.
I'm still looking for AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, or job training expenditures mentioned in the Constitution.
Anyway, Bush is spending a lot. Why bother? He's being attacked by both sides. He might as well cut cut cut.
Will we not be able to have male and female ends on our 1/4" audio cable for fear of offending the transgendered?
Courtesy of yesterday's opinionjournal.comBest of the Web Today (which also reported on the master/slave controversy):
Meanwhile, the
Chicago Maroon reports the University of Chicago is facing a problem with students who aren't potty-trained. Nate Claxton, who appeared on a panel at the university's Center for Gender Studies, said that, in the Maroon's words, he "knew people who had contracted bladder infections because choosing a gender bathroom bothered them so much that they did not go to the bathroom all day." Here are some more highlights from the panel:
Members of Feminist Majority, Queers & Associates, and the Center for Gender Studies organized the panel as part of the Coalition for a Queer Safe Campus. "Going to the bathroom is a moment where definition is very important in choosing a door," said Mary Anne Case, one of the panelists.
She pointed out that many women's restrooms have a caricature of a person in a dress on it. "Going into it implies that we are willing to be associated with that image. There are only two [images] to choose from. This moment involves an act of self-labeling."
The feminists, "queers" and gender studiers want unisex bathrooms:
Ana Minyan, the moderator of the panel, said that bathrooms will be called gender-neutral, rather than co-ed, because, "this terminology is generally used to refer to two sexes while the gender-neutral tends to be associated with more diversity and fluidity within the sex-gender continuum. As our aim is to make everyone, no matter what their gender and/or sexual persona is, more comfortable, we are using the term gender-neutral."
One Roger Simon thinks it's a great idea: "I believe that if all parts of the body were treated equally, and there was not so much emphasis on genitalia, than people could move beyond gender differences and grow mentally and socially." Well, call us small-minded, but the idea of going to the bathroom and having a girl at the next urinal doesn't exactly put us at ease.
Political correctness, like other totalitarian ideologies, demands absolute purity. -- James Taranto
researchers are working on others, including an allergen-free cat.
They've already done fluorescence with mice, I believe. And glow-in-the-dark cats would be useful, so cars can see them as they dart across the street.
Obviously the guy who uploads Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines to a Web site is an infringer.
The question is, should the owner of the Web site (read: OSP for DMCA purposes) be liable for copyright infringment as well? That's what the DMCA's safe harbor provision is supposed to address. Innocent, unknowing Web site operators should be able to be notified that someone was being naughty when the weren't looking, and take corrective action before being carted off by the IP police.
Disclaimer: I am not defending DMCA; rather, I am just trying to explain why that language in the parent of this thread was included.
Are you a lawyer? I am. I am not incorrect. The safe harbor provision has been widely-interpreted as applying to Web sites as well as OSPs. Web sites which, like/., allow anyone to post on them are considered OSPs for the purpose of DMCA.
And since Web sites are often maintained by various people, the DMCA safe harbor generally applies, which is why most commercial Web sites have DMCA contact info for an agent to receive notices of claimed infringement.
Obviously, if the infringer infringes on purpose, there is no safe harbor.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor The simplest, cheapest and best way a web site owner may protect against liability for copyright infringement resulting from users' uploaded content is to comply with the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Web site owners who comply with the requirements of the DMCA and who take appropriate action after receiving notice of copyright infringement from a copyright owner, will not be liable for money damages for users' uploaded content.
I think they just wanted to make it consitent with DMCA.
The closest distance between two points is a tunnel - Lyndon Johnson.
At least for those with Windows boxes. My two favorites:
Spybot S&D It's free and it "innouculates." Regular updates too.
Spywareblaster. A little reduncancy, and it has a nice Flash killing tool as well.
Honorable mention:
Peer Guardian. In addition to RIAA IP address killing, it prevents loading of DoubleClick ads and snoopware. Regular blocklist updates, and IP addy's may be manually added.
With the amount of information that's online these days, it's not that many more steps to reverse-engineer your identity from there.
First off, I'll defy any/.er to "reverse-engineer" a fake Yahoo mail account, unless he wants to fake a subpoena, and then you'd still need a US presence.
And I doubt that these Nigerians, gullible enough to be duped by their dupes, are as smart as our average/.ers...
What if people started wearing themse tags all the time, and the receivers became ubiquitous, maybe with an earpiece. Say you're at the grocery store, and you pass by someone you don't recognize, like a long lost relative, or that friend of a friend. Perhaps that one Halle Berry lookalike who is really into Linux. A conversation starts that might not have, possibly changing your life.
But seriously. Perhaps it could lead to a sort of in-person IM or friendster..."hey, you on aisle 9, are you really into Everquest, kittens, and bondage? Me too!"
Of course, there's the risk of spam, hacking, and stalkers...
Actually, didn't someone propose just this sort of thing with cellphones?
a great disservice to democracy. Now they are trying to improve on punchcards, and that's a disservice.
Will the argument go:
2000 - "Bush stole the election with punchcards. The people need e-voting!"
2004 - "Bush stole the election with e-voting. The people need punchcards!"
You know people, e-voting might not be foolproof, but punchcards are easier to hack. Any al Qaeda can walk into a DMV in California and ask for a voter's registration card, and voila!
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that OO reading and writing .ms formats would have MS all over them for DMCA or other IP issues. Has any hay been made over this?
The stated reasons were WMD, Iraq-Al-Qaida relation and relation with 9/11.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
First off, this was a discussion of international law (not that I remember the US ceding its sovereignty to the UN), not Bush's justification for the war.
Bush gave three reasons in his speeches before the war. Pay attention now:
WMD, war on terror, liberate Iraqis/democratize the region. Also, make the region more safe. From liberal NY Times columnist EJ Dionne in January, 4 months before the war:
(1) taking weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam Hussein's hands, or (2) removing Hussein from power, or (3) bringing democracy to Iraq and revolutionizing the politics of the Middle East.
Then why the same logic was not applied to UN inspection team ? why is it that UN team is supposed to find the WMD in a short time and US has to be given 250 years for the same.?
Because Hans "Cleuseau" Blix wouldn't be driving Saddam into a rat hole. The Left's idea of "containment" was Hussein's thugs training Muhammed Atta and throwing people into acid baths and wood chippers.
Given the choice of 1) "containment (see above definition) and 2) Dragging Saddam out of a rat hole, I'll take the latter.
Uhm... Didn't Sadam [sic] comply?
No. I can't believe all the people on this board suggesting the nonsensical proposition that Saddam was some cooperative guy who complied with the weapon's inspectors. There were numerous places the inspectors were prohibited from visiting, including dozens of palaces, some of which were square miles in size.
Ask the thousands of dead Kurds whather or not Saddam had WMDs...
What's also amazing is how many of you are willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt - as if a murderous dictator is entitled a presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty beyong a reasonable doubt - but you aren't willing to give Bush any such quarter.
I'd still like to hear from all you anti-Bush libs one thing:
How are the Iraqi people, and humanity, not better off without Saddam - who liked to have dissenters thrown feet-first into wood chippers or acid baths - removed? If we didn't go in and take him out, he'd still be cutting off ears and tongues of people who dared to speak their minds. The Iraqi's are happy and free, and you are on the wrong side of history, alongside America's "friends" like Jacques Chirac.
You would have Saddam still merrily commiting crimes against humanity, a completely untenable position.
and a good ol' fashioned taste of Nazi propoganda. Where's Osama?!
It took the whole world decades to catch former Nazis like Eichmann, and Mengele lived free into the 1970's.
These things take time. No sense in stomping your feet like a spolied child on such a great day.
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991
Technically, the 1991 war remained a cease-fire, a truce which Iraq violated by firing on US patrols during said cease-fire. This invoked the US's right to resume hotilities.
Furthermore, Iraq was in violation of about 2 dozen UN resolutions.
When you've been in possession of a country for months at a time and you've had thousands of people to search it with the co-operation of most of the people in that country, how hard should it be to find anything?
Absurd. We are still finding Egyptian mummies and artifacts that are several millenia-old buried in the desert. We could find Saddam's weapons 250 years from now buried somewhere.
I'll be interested to learn what Saddam has to say on the matter after intense interrogation.
That, and by all reports and estimates of Saddam's state of mind he'd have used those weapons if he'd had them when we marched on Baghdad.
So, if Saddam didn't have WMD, why would he throw out weapons inspectors and risk being thrown out of power? All Saddam had to do was comply with inspectors and he'd still be living in palaces built woth the Iraqi people's money, and still torturing and killing dissenters.
Of course we Californians can can always buy these on the Net, but these fish are tropical, in need of a certain temp and oxygenated water. How the hell do they ship these things? I want some of these for the new year.
This bodes very ill for my hopes for a glow-in-the-dark cat.
- CALIFORNIA CODES
The beauty (or horror, depending on your perspective) is the "unfair" part. What was not technically illegal in the past may now be sued for if it is "unfair."BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 17200
17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and
include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice
and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act
prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of
Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
Next case, hidden bank and ATM fees...
The general welfare reference is mentioned within the taxation power, not the spending power. Just because some revisionists have created spending authority which was never intended, don't pin that on the framers. The framers intended "general welfare" as running the government and satisfying the ends of the preamble (justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty). Why would the Constitution spell out specific spending powers (and every other power) but grant some broad, nebulous spending authority - within the taxation power?
Keep in mind that the income tax was banned by amenedment until 1920...
In John McCain's words, Bush is spending like a drunken sailor.
Conservatives are against runaway spending on principle, and because they figure libs won't give them any credit even if they do spend:
Federal spending soars under Bush's watch
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II
Notice this isn't just on defense and homeland security (you know, the common defense that the Constitution actually calls for), but also for entitlements.
I'm still looking for AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, or job training expenditures mentioned in the Constitution.
Anyway, Bush is spending a lot. Why bother? He's being attacked by both sides. He might as well cut cut cut.
Courtesy of yesterday's opinionjournal.com Best of the Web Today (which also reported on the master/slave controversy):
Political correctness, like other totalitarian ideologies, demands absolute purity.
-- James Taranto
researchers are working on others, including an allergen-free cat.
They've already done fluorescence with mice, I believe. And glow-in-the-dark cats would be useful, so cars can see them as they dart across the street.
Actually, he's only 120, and I think he likes robots too.
Obviously the guy who uploads Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines to a Web site is an infringer.
The question is, should the owner of the Web site (read: OSP for DMCA purposes) be liable for copyright infringment as well? That's what the DMCA's safe harbor provision is supposed to address. Innocent, unknowing Web site operators should be able to be notified that someone was being naughty when the weren't looking, and take corrective action before being carted off by the IP police.
Disclaimer: I am not defending DMCA; rather, I am just trying to explain why that language in the parent of this thread was included.
Are you a lawyer? I am. I am not incorrect. The safe harbor provision has been widely-interpreted as applying to Web sites as well as OSPs. Web sites which, like /., allow anyone to post on them are considered OSPs for the purpose of DMCA.
And since Web sites are often maintained by various people, the DMCA safe harbor generally applies, which is why most commercial Web sites have DMCA contact info for an agent to receive notices of claimed infringement.
Obviously, if the infringer infringes on purpose, there is no safe harbor.
From keytlaw
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor
I think they just wanted to make it consitent with DMCA.The simplest, cheapest and best way a web site owner may protect against liability for copyright infringement resulting from users' uploaded content is to comply with the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Web site owners who comply with the requirements of the DMCA and who take appropriate action after receiving notice of copyright infringement from a copyright owner, will not be liable for money damages for users' uploaded content.
The closest distance between two points is a tunnel
- Lyndon Johnson.
I haven't mustered up the nerve to actually drop $80 for one of these yet, but they would definitely impress at parties!
At least for those with Windows boxes. My two favorites:
Spybot S&D It's free and it "innouculates." Regular updates too.
Spywareblaster. A little reduncancy, and it has a nice Flash killing tool as well.
Honorable mention:
Peer Guardian. In addition to RIAA IP address killing, it prevents loading of DoubleClick ads and snoopware. Regular blocklist updates, and IP addy's may be manually added.
Google or Microsoft, doesn't really matter. Same evil warlords control the whole world either way.
"The closest distance between two points is a tunnel."
-Lyndon Johnson.
Do a search under "linus."
MSN
Google.
Someone starts eating crackers.
With the amount of information that's online these days, it's not that many more steps to reverse-engineer your identity from there.
/.er to "reverse-engineer" a fake Yahoo mail account, unless he wants to fake a subpoena, and then you'd still need a US presence.
/.ers...
First off, I'll defy any
And I doubt that these Nigerians, gullible enough to be duped by their dupes, are as smart as our average
What if people started wearing themse tags all the time, and the receivers became ubiquitous, maybe with an earpiece. Say you're at the grocery store, and you pass by someone you don't recognize, like a long lost relative, or that friend of a friend. Perhaps that one Halle Berry lookalike who is really into Linux. A conversation starts that might not have, possibly changing your life.
But seriously. Perhaps it could lead to a sort of in-person IM or friendster..."hey, you on aisle 9, are you really into Everquest, kittens, and bondage? Me too!"
Of course, there's the risk of spam, hacking, and stalkers...
Actually, didn't someone propose just this sort of thing with cellphones?
a great disservice to democracy. Now they are trying to improve on punchcards, and that's a disservice.
Will the argument go:
2000 - "Bush stole the election with punchcards. The people need e-voting!"
2004 - "Bush stole the election with e-voting. The people need punchcards!"
You know people, e-voting might not be foolproof, but punchcards are easier to hack. Any al Qaeda can walk into a DMV in California and ask for a voter's registration card, and voila!
Hacked.
I'm going to make a showing of good faith and splay open all of ports like a pr0n star... ...not!
1000 CPUs in a little box?
That thing could cause a China Syndrome if not cooled correctly.